Abatacept and non-melanoma skin cancer in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a comprehensive evaluation of randomised controlled trials and observational studies.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) risk associated with abatacept treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: This evaluation included 16 abatacept RA clinical trials and 6 observational studies. NMSC incidence rates (IRs)/1000 patient-years (p-y) of exposure were compared between patients treated with abatacept versus placebo, conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and other biological/targeted synthetic (b/ts)DMARDs. For observational studies, a random-effects model was used to pool rate ratios (RRs). RESULTS: ~49 000 patients receiving abatacept were analysed from clinical trials (~7000) and observational studies (~42 000). In randomised trials (n=4138; median abatacept exposure, 12 (range 2-30) months), NMSC IRs (95% CIs) were not significantly different for abatacept (6.0 (3.3 to 10.0)) and placebo (4.0 (1.3 to 9.3)) and remained stable throughout the long-term, open-label period (median cumulative exposure, 28 (range 2-130 months); 21 335 p-y of exposure (7044 patients over 3 years)). For registry databases, NMSC IRs/1000 p-y were 5-12 (abatacept), 1.6-10 (csDMARDs) and 3-8 (other b/tsDMARDs). Claims database IRs were 19-22 (abatacept), 15-18 (csDMARDs) and 14-17 (other b/tsDMARDs). Pooled RRs (95% CIs) from observational studies for NMSC in patients receiving abatacept were 1.84 (1.00 to 3.37) vs csDMARDs and 1.11 (0.98 to 1.26) vs other b/tsDMARDs. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the warnings and precautions of the abatacept label, this analysis suggests a potential increase in NMSC risk with abatacept use compared with csDMARDs. No significant increase was observed compared with b/tsDMARDs, but the lower limit of the 95% CI was close to unity.

Safety and effectiveness of abatacept in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: results from the PRINTO/PRCSG registry.

OBJECTIVE: To report the interim 5-year safety and effectiveness of abatacept in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) in the PRINTO/PRCSG registry. METHODS: The Abatacept JIA Registry (NCT01357668) is an ongoing observational study of children with JIA receiving abatacept; enrolment started in January 2013. Clinical sites enrolled patients with JIA starting or currently receiving abatacept. Eligible patients were assessed for safety (primary end point) and effectiveness over 10 years. Effectiveness was measured by clinical 10-joint Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (cJADAS10) in patients with JIA over 5 years. As-observed analysis is presented according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines. RESULTS: As of 31 March 2020, 587 patients were enrolled; 569 are included in this analysis (including 134 new users) with 1214.6 patient-years of safety data available. Over 5 years, the incidence rate (IR) per 100 patient-years of follow-up of serious adverse events was 5.52 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.27, 7.01) and of events of special interest was 3.62 (95% CI: 2.63, 4.86), with 18 serious infections (IR 1.48 [95% CI: 0.88, 2.34]). As early as month 3, 55.9% of patients achieved cJADAS10 low disease activity and inactive disease (20.3%, 72/354 and 35.6%, 126/354, respectively), sustained over 5 years. Disease activity measures improved over 5 years across JIA categories. CONCLUSION: Abatacept was well tolerated in patients with JIA, with no new safety signals identified and with well-controlled disease activity, including some patients achieving inactive disease or remission. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01357668.

Comparative safety of biologic versus conventional synthetic DMARDs in rheumatoid arthritis with COPD: a real-world population study.

OBJECTIVES: Abatacept, a biologic DMARD, was associated with respiratory adverse events in a small subgroup of RA patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in a trial. Whether this potential risk is specific to abatacept or extends to all biologics and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) is unclear. We assessed the risk of adverse respiratory events associated with biologic and tsDMARDs compared with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) among RA patients with concomitant COPD in a large, real-world cohort. METHODS: We used a prevalent new-user design to study RA patients with COPD in the US-based MarketScan databases. New users of biologic DMARDs and/or tsDMARDs were matched on time-conditional propensity scores to new users of csDMARDs. Adverse respiratory events were estimated using Cox models comparing current use of biologic/tsDMARDs with csDMARDs. RESULTS: The cohort included 7424 patients initiating biologic/tsDMARDs and 7424 matched patients initiating csDMARDs. The adjusted hazard ratio of hospitalized COPD exacerbation comparing biologic/tsDMARD vs csDMARD was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.55, 1.06), while it was 1.02 (95% CI: 0.82, 1.27) for bronchitis, 1.21 (95% CI: 0.92, 1.58) for hospitalized pneumonia or influenza and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.87, 1.12) for outpatient pneumonia or influenza. The hazard ratio of the combined end point of COPD exacerbation, bronchitis and hospitalized pneumonia or influenza was 1.04 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.21). CONCLUSION: In this large, real-world comparative safety study, biologic and tsDMARDs, including abatacept, were not associated with an increased risk of adverse respiratory events when compared with csDMARDs in patients with RA and COPD.

Risk of Biologics and Glucocorticoids in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis Undergoing Arthroplasty: A Cohort Study.

Background: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at increased risk for infection after arthroplasty, yet risks of specific biologic medications are unknown. Objective: To compare risk for postoperative infection among biologics and to evaluate the risk associated with glucocorticoids. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Medicare and Truven MarketScan administrative data from January 2006 through September 2015. Patients: Adults with RA who were having elective inpatient total knee or hip arthroplasty, either primary or revision, and had a recent infusion of or prescription for abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, or tocilizumab before surgery. Measurements: Propensity-adjusted analyses using inverse probability weights evaluated comparative risks for hospitalized infection within 30 days and prosthetic joint infection (PJI) within 1 year after surgery between biologics or with different dosages of glucocorticoids. Secondary analyses evaluated non-urinary tract hospitalized infections and 30-day readmissions. Results: Among 9911 patients treated with biologics, 10 923 surgical procedures were identified. Outcomes were similar in patients who received different biologics. Compared with an 8.16% risk for hospitalized infection with abatacept, predicted risk from propensity-weighted models ranged from 6.87% (95% CI, 5.30% to 8.90%) with adalimumab to 8.90% (CI, 5.70% to 13.52%) with rituximab. Compared with a 2.14% 1-year cumulative incidence of PJI with abatacept, predicted incidence ranged from 0.35% (CI, 0.11% to 1.12%) with rituximab to 3.67% (CI, 1.69% to 7.88%) with tocilizumab. Glucocorticoids were associated with a dose-dependent increase in postoperative risk for all outcomes. Propensity-weighted models showed that use of more than 10 mg of glucocorticoids per day (vs. no glucocorticoid use) resulted in a predicted risk for hospitalized infection of 13.25% (CI, 9.72% to 17.81%) (vs. 6.78%) and a predicted 1-year cumulative incidence of PJI of 3.83% (CI, 2.13% to 6.87%) (vs. 2.09%). Limitation: Residual confounding is possible, and sample sizes for rituximab and tocilizumab were small. Conclusion: Risks for hospitalized infection, PJI, and readmission after arthroplasty were similar across biologics. In contrast, glucocorticoid use, especially with dosages above 10 mg/d, was associated with greater risk for adverse outcomes. Primary Funding Source: Rheumatology Research Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Abatacept initiation in rheumatoid arthritis and the risk of cancer: a population-based comparative cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether abatacept as initial biological DMARD (bDMARD) in the treatment of RA, when compared with other bDMARDs, is associated with an increased risk of cancer overall and by specific cancer sites (breast, lung, lymphoma, melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer). METHODS: We performed a population-based cohort study among patients newly treated with bDMARDs within the US-based Truven MarketScan population and Supplemental US Medicare from 2007 to 2014. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios and 95% CIs of any cancer (and specific cancers) associated with initiation of abatacept, compared with initiation of other bDMARDs, adjusted for age and deciles of the propensity score. RESULTS: The cohort included 4328 patients on abatacept and 59 860 on other bDMARDs, of whom 409 and 4197 were diagnosed with any cancer during follow-up (incidence rates 4.76 per 100 per year and 3.41 per 100 per year, respectively). Compared with other bDMARDs, the use of abatacept was associated with an increased incidence of cancer overall (hazard ratioadjusted 1.17; 95% CI 1.06, 1.30). Analyses by specific cancer sites showed a significantly increased incidence of non-melanoma skin cancer (hazard ratioadjusted 1.20; 95% CI 1.03, 1.39), but no significant difference for other specific cancer sites. CONCLUSION: The use of abatacept as first bDMARD in the treatment of RA was associated with a slight increased risk of cancer overall and particularly non-melanoma skin cancer, compared with other bDMARDs. This potential signal needs to be replicated in other settings.

Warfarin and Aspirin Use for Stroke Prevention Among Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: The US National Health and Wellness Survey.

Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and aspirin (ASA) are recommended for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). This study examined VKA and ASA use and their clinical correlates, including CHADS2 stroke risk scores, among adult patients with AF in the general population. Participants included 1290 (1.72%) adults reporting diagnosis with AF (mean age, 64.9 years; 65% men) from the 2009 US National Health and Wellness Survey, an online, self-administered, nationwide, stratified random sample survey of 75,000 adults. Antithrombotic use patterns, including VKA, ASA, VKA+ASA, and non-VKA/ASA, and their correlates were examined using logistic regressions. Respondents with AF were treated with VKA (26.6%), ASA (34.5%), VKA+ASA (15.4%), or neither (23.5%). Among those with CHADS2 ≥1, 19.3% did not report use of VKA or ASA. Among those with CHADS2 ≥2, 35.7% were treated only with ASA. Adjusting for covariates in logistic regressions, CHADS2 ≥1 was associated with VKA and/or ASA (vs. non-VKA/ASA) use (P ≤ 0.02), but CHADS2 score did not differentiate VKA versus ASA use (P > 0.4). Comorbidities were associated with ASA versus VKA use (P ≤ 0.01). Older age, male gender, married status, and obesity were each associated with use of at least one of the treatments investigated (all P < 0.05). One-in-five AF patients with CHADS2 ≥1 were untreated and more than one-third with CHADS2 ≥2 treated with only ASA for stroke prevention. Our findings suggest that although patient characteristics including CHADS2 score were associated with either VKA or ASA use, CHADS2 score was unrelated to VKA versus ASA treatment.

Comparison of costs and discharge outcomes for patients hospitalized for ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke with or without atrial fibrillation in the United States.

This retrospective analysis investigated the impact of baseline clinical characteristics, including atrial fibrillation (AF), on hospital discharge status (to home or continuing care), mortality, length of hospital stay, and treatment costs in patients hospitalized for stroke. The analysis included adult patients hospitalized with a primary diagnosis of ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke between January 2006 and June 2011 from the premier alliance database, a large nationally representative database of inpatient health records. Patients included in the analysis were categorized as with or without AF, based on the presence or absence of a secondary listed diagnosis of AF. Irrespective of stroke type (ischemic or hemorrhagic), AF was associated with an increased risk of mortality during the index hospitalization event, as well as a higher probability of discharge to a continuing care facility, longer duration of stay, and higher treatment costs. In patients hospitalized for a stroke event, AF appears to be an independent risk factor of in-hospital mortality, discharge to continuing care, length of hospital stay, and increased treatment costs.

Initiation of warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: early effects on ischaemic strokes.

AIMS: An increased risk of stroke was observed in two atrial fibrillation (AF) trials of oral factor Xa inhibitors, when patients were transitioned to open label warfarin at the end of the study. The objective of this study is to determine whether initiation of warfarin is associated with an increased risk of stroke in patients with AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a nested case-control analysis was conducted within a cohort of 70 766 patients with AF between 1993 and 2008. Stroke cases were randomly matched with up to 10 controls on age, sex, date of AF diagnosis, and time since AF diagnosis. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted rate ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of stroke associated with current warfarin use classified according to time since initiation of treatment (<30 days, 31-90 days, and >90 days), when compared with non-use. A total of 5519 patients experienced a stroke during follow-up. Warfarin was associated with a 71% increased risk of stroke in the first 30 days of use (RR: 1.71, 95% CI: 1.39-2.12), while decreased risks were observed with initiation >30 days before the event (31-90 days: RR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.34-0.75 and >90 days: RR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.50-0.61, respectively). CONCLUSION: Patients initiating warfarin may be at an increased risk of stroke during the first 30 days of treatment, supporting the biological plausibility of a transient hypercoagulable state at the start of the treatment, although additional studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Malignancy outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with abatacept and other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: Results from a 10-year international post-marketing study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk of malignancy (overall, breast, lung, and lymphoma) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with abatacept, conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and other biologic/targeted synthetic (b/ts)DMARDs in clinical practice. METHODS: Four international observational data sources were included: ARTIS (Sweden), RABBIT (Germany), FORWARD (USA), and BC (Canada). Crude incidence rates (IRs) per 1000 patient-years of exposure with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for a malignancy event were calculated; rate ratios (RRs) were estimated and adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and other potential confounders. RRs were then pooled in a random-effects model. RESULTS: Across data sources, mean follow-up for patients treated with abatacept (n = 5182), csDMARDs (n = 73,755), and other b/tsDMARDs (n = 37,195) was 3.0-3.7, 2.9-6.2, and 3.1-4.7 years, respectively. IRs per 1000 patient-years for overall malignancy ranged from 7.6-11.4 (abatacept), 8.6-13.2 (csDMARDs), and 5.0-11.8 (other b/tsDMARDs). IRs ranged from: 0-4.4, 0-3.3, and 0-2.5 (breast cancer); 0.1-2.8, 0-3.7, and 0.2-2.9 (lung cancer); and 0-1.1, 0-0.9, and 0-0.6 (lymphoma), respectively, for the three treatment groups. The numbers of individual cancers (breast, lung, and lymphoma) in some registries were low; RRs were not available. There were a few cases of lymphoma in some of the registries; ARTIS observed an RR of 2.8 (95% CI 1.1-6.8) with abatacept versus csDMARDs. The pooled RRs (95% CIs) for overall malignancy with abatacept were 1.1 (0.8-1.5) versus csDMARDs and 1.0 (0.8-1.3) versus b/tsDMARDs. CONCLUSIONS: This international, post-marketing observational safety study did not find any statistically significant increase in the risk of overall malignancies in pooled data in patients treated with abatacept compared with csDMARDs or with other b/tsDMARDs. Assessment of larger populations is needed to further evaluate the risks for individual cancers, especially lymphoma.

Infection outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with abatacept and other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: Results from a 10-year international post-marketing study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate risk of infections requiring hospitalization and opportunistic infections, including tuberculosis, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with abatacept versus conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and other biologic/targeted synthetic (b/ts) DMARDs. METHODS: Five international observational data sources were used: two biologic registries (Sweden, Germany), a disease registry (USA) and two healthcare claims databases (Canada, USA). Crude incidence rates (IRs) per 1000 patient-years, with 95 % CIs, were used to estimate rate ratios (RRs) comparing abatacept versus csDMARDs or other b/tsDMARDs. RRs were adjusted for demographic factors, comorbidities, and other potential confounders and then pooled across data sources using a random effects model (REM). RESULTS: The data sources included 6450 abatacept users, 136,636 csDMARD users and 54,378 other b/tsDMARD users, with a mean follow-up range of 2.2-6.2 years. Across data sources, the IRs for infections requiring hospitalization ranged from 16 to 56 for abatacept, 19-46 for csDMARDs, and 18-40 for other b/tsDMARDs. IRs for opportunistic infections were 0.4-7.8, 0.3-4.3, and 0.5-3.8; IRs for tuberculosis were 0.0-8.4, 0.0-6.0, and 0.0-6.3, respectively. The pooled adjusted RR (95 % CI), only reported for infections requiring hospitalization, was 1.2 (0.6-2.2) for abatacept versus csDMARDs and 0.9 (0.6-1.3) versus other b/tsDMARDs. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this international, observational study showed similar hospitalized infection risk for abatacept versus csDMARDs or other b/tsDMARDs. IRs for opportunistic infections, including tuberculosis, were low. These data are consistent with the known safety profile of abatacept.

Delta-8, a Cannabis-Derived Tetrahydrocannabinol Isomer: Evaluating Case Report Data in the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) Database.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to characterize the frequency of adverse effects where delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol (D8-THC) was identified as a possible suspect drug in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database. Methods: A case-series design was used. Results: A total of 183 cases listed D8-THC as a suspect drug in FAERS as of June 30, 2021. The most common events included dyspnea, respiratory disorder, and seizure. The reporting odds ratios were consistently and significantly greater than 2, a 2-fold increase from 2019 to 2021, indicating a potential safety signal. Conclusion: The first report of D8-THC, in the FAERS database, as a suspect drug appears to be in 2011. Overall, there are 183 total cases listing D8-THC as a suspect drug in the FAERS database as of June 30, 2021. Of the 183 cases, most were respiratory in nature.

Comparative effectiveness of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess real-world comparative effectiveness studies of biologic (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) through a systematic review. METHODS: We searched Medline for journal articles (2001-2021) and Embase® for abstracts presented at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2020 and 2021 annual meetings on non-randomized studies comparing the effectiveness of b/tsDMARDs using ACR-recommended disease activity measures, measures of functional status, and patient-reported outcomes (HAQ, PROMIS PF, patient pain, Patient and Physician Global Assessment of disease activity). Methodological heterogeneity between studies precluded meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions-I tool. RESULTS: Of 1283 records screened, 68 were selected for data extraction, of which 1 was excluded due to critical risk of bias. Most studies were multicenter observational cohort/registry studies (n = 60) and were published between 2011 and 2021 (n = 60). Mean or median reported RA duration was between 6 and 15 years. Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (46 studies), Clinical Disease Activity Index (37 studies), and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (32 studies) were the most common outcomes used in clinical practice, with regional differences identified. The most common comparison was between tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) and non-TNFi bDMARDs (35 studies). There were no evident differences between b/tsDMARDs in clinical effectiveness. CONCLUSION: This systematic review summarizing real-world evidence from a very large number of global studies found there are many effective options for the treatment of RA, but relatively less evidence to support the use of any one b/tsDMARD or drug class over another. Treatment for patients with RA should be tailored to suit individual clinical profiles. Further research is needed to identify whether specific patient subgroups may benefit from specific drug classes.

Safety outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with abatacept: results from a multinational surveillance study across seven European registries.

BACKGROUND: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have an increased risk of infection and malignancy compared with the general population. Infection risk is increased further with the use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), whereas evidence on whether the use of biologic DMARDs increases cancer risk remains equivocal. This single-arm, post-marketing study estimated the incidence of prespecified infection and malignancy outcomes in patients with RA treated with intravenous or subcutaneous abatacept. METHODS: Data were included from seven European RA quality registries: ATTRA (Anti-TNF Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis [Czech Republic]), DANBIO (Danish Rheumatologic Database), ROB-FIN (National Registry of Antirheumatic and Biological Treatment in Finland), ORA (Orencia and Rheumatoid Arthritis [France]), GISEA (Italian Group for the Study of Early Arthritis), BIOBADASER (Spanish Register of Adverse Events of Biological Therapies in Rheumatic Diseases), and the SCQM (Swiss Clinical Quality Management) system. Each registry is unique with respect to design, data collection, definition of the study cohort, reporting, and validation of outcomes. In general, registries defined the index date as the first day of abatacept treatment and reported data for infections requiring hospitalization and overall malignancies; data for other infection and malignancy outcomes were not available for every cohort. Abatacept exposure was measured in patient-years (p-y). Incidence rates (IRs) were calculated as the number of events per 1000 p-y of follow-up with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Over 5000 patients with RA treated with abatacept were included. Most patients (78-85%) were female, and the mean age range was 52-58 years. Baseline characteristics were largely consistent across registries. Among patients treated with abatacept, IRs for infections requiring hospitalization across the registries ranged from 4 to 100 events per 1000 p-y, while IRs for overall malignancy ranged from 3 to 19 per 1000 p-y. CONCLUSIONS: Despite heterogeneity between registries in terms of design, data collection, and ascertainment of safety outcomes, as well as the possibility of under-reporting of adverse events in observational studies, the safety profile of abatacept reported here was largely consistent with previous findings in patients with RA treated with abatacept, with no new or increased risks of infection or malignancy.

Perceived or actual barriers to warfarin use in atrial fibrillation based on electronic medical records.

Compared with usual practice, clinical trials often exclude patients with relative contraindications. A study of real-world warfarin use could help inform trials of new medications that could potentially replace warfarin. The objective of this study was to describe potential barriers to warfarin use among patients with atrial fibrillation. This was a retrospective study of electronic medical records (1998-2007) from an inner-city public hospital and affiliated primary care clinics and included adults aged 18 years or more with atrial fibrillation. Exclusions included mitral or aortic valve replacement, hyperthyroidism, or no clinical encounter within 1 year after first diagnosis. Warfarin exposure was defined by electronic pharmacy or physician order data or, in a second definition, international normalized ratio > 1.3. A history of potential barriers to warfarin was defined by International Classification of Diagnoses, 9th revision codes or electronic medical record "dictionary" terms. Among 3329 patients, CHADS2 scores were 0 (17%), 1 (26%), 2-6 (57%). Among 1276 patients with CHADS2 scores >0 who were prescribed warfarin, rates of potential barriers to warfarin were gastrointestinal or genitourinary hemorrhage (20%), alcohol abuse (16%), renal insufficiency (15%), predisposition to falls (8%), cirrhosis/hepatitis (5%), intracranial hemorrhage (1%), other hemorrhage (6%), and age 75 years or more (23%). Among 1475 patients with CHADS2 scores >0 who were not prescribed warfarin, these rates differed by not >3% except for predisposition to falls (16%) and age 75 years or more (43%). In real-world practice, many patients given warfarin have contraindications that would exclude them from clinical trials, and many patients apparently eligible for warfarin do not receive it.

A net clinical benefit analysis of warfarin and aspirin on stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation: a nested case-control study.

BACKGROUND: As the management of patients treated with anticoagulants and antiplatelet drugs entails balancing coagulation levels, we evaluated the net clinical benefit of warfarin and aspirin on stroke in a large cohort of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: A population-based cohort study of all patients at least 18 years of age with a first-ever diagnosis of chronic AF during the period 1993-2008 was conducted within the United Kingdom General Practice Research Database. A nested case-control analysis was conducted to estimate the risk of ischemic stroke and intracranial hemorrhage associated with the use of warfarin and aspirin. Cases were matched up to 10 controls on age, sex, and date of cohort entry. The adjusted net clinical benefit of warfarin and aspirin (expressed as the number of strokes prevented per 100 persons per year) was calculated by subtracting the ischemic stroke rate (prevented by therapy) from the intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) rate (increased by therapy). RESULTS: The cohort included 70,766 patients newly-diagnosed with chronic AF, of whom 5519 experienced an ischemic stroke and 689 an ICH during follow-up. The adjusted net clinical benefit of warfarin was 0.59 (95% CI: 0.45, 0.73). However, the benefit was not seen for patients below (0.08, 95%: -0.38, 0.54) and above (-0.49, 95% CI: -1.13, 0.15) therapeutic range. The net clinical benefit of warfarin, apparent after 3 months of continuous use, increased as a function of CHADS2 score. The net clinical benefit was not significant with aspirin (-0.07, 95% CI: -0.22, 0.08), though it was seen in certain subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Warfarin provides a net clinical benefit in patients with atrial fibrillation, which is maintained with longer duration of use, particularly when used within therapeutic range. A similar net effect is not as clear with aspirin.

Increase in Cannabis Use Among Adults With Rheumatic Diseases: Results From a 2014-2019 United States Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE: Despite advances in treatments and outcomes among patients with rheumatic diseases, there is an unmet need in pain management. Cannabis has emerged as a potential opioid-sparing alternative, with arthritic pain as a commonly cited reason for medicinal cannabis use. However, little is known, and we set out to understand patterns of cannabis use in a US-wide rheumatic disease population. METHODS: The study included participants in FORWARD, The National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases. Participants were asked in 2014 and 2019 about their past and current cannabis use. Demographic characteristics, patient-reported outcomes, medications, comorbidities, and diagnoses were compared between cannabis users and non-users with t-tests, chi-square tests, logistic regression, and geographic assessment. RESULTS: Among 11,006 respondents, cannabis use increased from 6.3% in 2014 to 18.4% in 2019, with the greatest prevalence of use in states where cannabis use was legalized. Most users (74% and 62% in 2014 and 2019, respectively) reported that cannabis was effective in the relief of arthritis symptoms. Cannabis users were more likely to be taking weak opioids (odds ratio 1.2 [95% confidence interval 1.0, 1.5], P = 0.03), to have a history of smoking tobacco (odds ratio 1.7 [95% confidence interval 1.5, 2.1], P < 0.001), and had worse measures on all assessed patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSION: Reported cannabis use in this cohort increased significantly between 2014 and 2019. Characteristics of users suggest that those who try cannabis are feeling worse symptomatically, and their pain management needs may not be adequately addressed by other therapies. The association between cannabis, opioids, and patient-reported outcomes highlight areas for future work.

Risk of opportunistic infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis initiating abatacept: cumulative clinical trial data.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate incidence of opportunistic infections (OIs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with abatacept in clinical trials. METHODS: This pooled analysis of 16 randomized, double-blind/open-label trials, with ≥ 1 abatacept (intravenous or subcutaneous) arm, and with/without placebo control covered cumulative (controlled short-term and open-label long-term) abatacept exposure periods. OIs were analyzed separately in controlled (abatacept and placebo individually) and cumulative periods. OIs were identified using a prespecified list; events were independently adjudicated. Unadjusted incidence rates (IRs; per 100 patient-years) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: In cumulative periods, 7044 patients received abatacept, with a mean (standard deviation) duration of exposure of 36.9 (26.2) months (21,274 patient-years of exposure). IRs (95% CIs) of OIs were 0.17 (0.05-0.43) for abatacept and 0.56 (0.22-1.15) for placebo during the controlled periods and 0.21 (0.15-0.28) for abatacept during the cumulative periods. There was 1 case of tuberculosis in both the abatacept (IR [95% CI] 0.04 [0.00-0.24]) and placebo (IR [95% CI] 0.08 [0.00-0.44]) groups during the controlled periods; 13 verified tuberculosis cases (IR [95% CI] 0.06 [0.03-0.10]) were reported in the cumulative period. Herpes zoster was reported numerically more often with abatacept (IR 1.9 [1.4-2.5]), versus placebo (1.7 [1.1-2.6]) in the controlled periods; within the cumulative period, herpes zoster IR (95% CI) was 1.53 (1.36-1.71) for abatacept-treated patients. CONCLUSION: In controlled periods of the clinical trials, abatacept-treated patients had similarly low rates of OIs compared with placebo-treated patients. Overall, OI rates were similar among abatacept-treated patients in the controlled and cumulative periods and consistent with the ranges reported in the literature.

Acceptability and Content Validity of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Considered From the Perspective of Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To consider the acceptability and content validity of patient-reported outcome measures commonly used in rheumatoid arthritis by describing patients' perceptions of patient-reported outcome measures and comparing patients' responses on patient-reported outcome measures with their verbal accounts of disease impacts. METHODS: We used a sequential mixed methods approach, combining analysis of interviews and data from patient-reported outcome measures (from the Health Assessment Questionnaire, the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue subscale, the EuroQol 5-domain instrument, the Short Form 36 health survey, and a visual analog scale [VAS] for pain, fatigue, sleep, and patient global assessment of disease activity). Qualitative analysis of patients' perceptions of patient-reported outcome measures informed a subsequent comparison between data from patient-reported outcome measures and verbal accounts of pain, fatigue, sleep, and functional limitations to assess the effectiveness of patient-reported outcome measures in communicating disease impact. RESULTS: The study included 18 patients. Although a few patients offered positive comments about patient-reported outcome measures, most doubted that patient-reported outcome measures could accurately convey their experience of symptoms and functional limitations. Patients discussed the ease of responding to questions, capturing and conveying symptoms, and concerns about the underreporting of symptoms and interpretation of responses. Compared with verbal accounts, patient-reported outcome measures often did not convey the personal significance of limitations; however, patient-reported outcome measures captured limitations that patients omitted or described with insufficient detail during interviews. Although verbal accounts of pain could be categorized into 3 levels of severity (pain without interference in activities, pain is not the worst ever experienced but interferes with activities, and pain is omnipresent), the pain VAS was more effective at conveying finer gradations in pain severity. CONCLUSION: Although patients may feel that patient-reported outcome measures have certain shortcomings, patient-reported outcome measures also have advantages relative to verbal discussion for communicating symptoms and disease impact.

Prevalence of autoimmune diseases and other associated conditions in children and young adults with juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Many autoimmune diseases share common pathogenic mechanisms; however, there are limited studies quantifying the coexistence of autoimmune diseases and associated conditions in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). This large US-based study estimated and compared the prevalence of multiple coexisting autoimmune diseases in patients with JIA with a general paediatric (GP) patient population. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted using registry data from the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (January 2010-October 2018). The prevalence of multiple autoimmune diseases was estimated in patients (age <21 years) with JIA and a control group from the GP patient population. Crude prevalences of 26 prespecified autoimmune diseases and associated conditions were compared using Bayesian Poisson regression modelling for each year up to the end of the study period. RESULTS: Overall, 2026 patients were included in the JIA cohort and 41 572 in the GP cohort. Of 26 autoimmune diseases and associated conditions evaluated, 14 (53.8%) had a significantly higher prevalence in the JIA cohort compared with the GP cohort. In total, seven (26.9%) autoimmune diseases or associated conditions had a >20-fold increased prevalence in the JIA cohort compared with the GP cohort. CONCLUSION: In this study, patients with JIA had a greater prevalence of a large number of coexisting autoimmune diseases and associated conditions compared with the GP population. Physicians should consider coexisting autoimmune diseases in the treatment and management of patients with JIA.

Realizing the Potential of the Patient Perspective.

Assessing a patient's perspective on their treatment is part of an increasingly integrated approach to pharmacovigilance and treatment optimization. New tools and methods developed in partnership with patients can capture and quantify cognitive and behavioral aspects of the treatment experience. These treatment insights have the potential to shape the drug development process, as well as supplement patient-reported outcome data in a way that is meaningful to the patient. We highlight examples of tools developed to assess the impact of treatment on the aspects of disease that are of utmost concern to the patient in their daily life.